On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 09:38 -0700, Will Norris wrote:
Regardless of what specific spec addition we're talking about, I don't
think the technical difficulty to implement it should ever be a
determining factor in weighing the merit of the proposal.
I disagree here. We don't write specs just so
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:45PM +1100, Manger, James H wrote:
Perhaps I will add a note to the OpenID 2.0 errata page stating
HTTP 303 See Other semantics are not currently supported so they should
be avoided when hosting OpenIDs.
Thank you for your enlightened response, a lot of that makes
On 19-Mar-08, at 2:51 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:54:20PM -0700, Kevin Turner wrote:
A request for an OpenID Identifier SHALL NOT issue a 303 response.
This is even worse and also backwards incompatible. All the OpenIDs
that
currently use 303 redirects, including
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 23:54 +0900, James Henstridge wrote:
The fact that some sites incorrectly resolved the redirect to
/about/ is probably due to the non-standard response headers for
http://bytesexual.org/ -- it contains a relative URI reference in the
location header, while the spec
Hello again,
Firstly, sorry for the double post, the OpenID.net homepage does not
clearly indicate that specs@openid.net is a mailing list. However, it has come
to my attention that the mailing list software has truncated my message
http://openid.net/pipermail/general/2008-March/004217.html
